Montana Articles

Lobbying Money in the 2017 Montana Legislature

4/28/2017

There’s a lot of graft in the Montana Legislature.

I know this because Montana Lobby sent me an email this morning telling me that.

“In an attempt to make more information accessible to the public, we compiled all lobbyist spending reports filed in Montana during the 2017 session (current as of last week) and added them up. Feel free to share the information if you'd like.”

Well, you’re fuckin’-A right I’m gonna share this!

I live for days when I get delivered gold like this, oh yes indeed.

According to Montana Lobby, over $4.8 million was spent this session lobbying legislators to vote a certain way.

Schwew!

We know the groups that spent this money, and the lead lobbyists for those groups.

I’d like to give you the largest lobbyist groups today, as well as what they spent influencing your representatives.

I consider this to be corruption myself.

Many people disagree with that, and that’s perfectly fine.

So like I mentioned, all this information comes from Montana Lobby and you can go to their site and see it yourself.

They in turn take it from the Montana Commissioner of Political Practices website.

I’m just going to gussy it up a bit for you, make it more readable.

First off, we know that over $4.8 million was spent lobbying the 150 Montana legislators over the past few months.

That comes out to $32,000 per legislator.

I’ll list them according to the money they spent, with dollar amounts rounded to the nearest thousand and only groups with $20,000 or more listed.

The big winners were:

Altria Client Services: $183,000
Montana Beer & Wine Distributors: $121,000
RAI Services Company: $113,000
Montana Association of Counties: $109,000
Montana Association of Realtors: $105,000

Montana Chamber of Commerce: $92,000
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes: $90,000

Blue Cross Blue Shield: $87,000

AARP Montana: $79,000
Charter: $74,000

Express Scripts Holding: $65,000
American Cancer Society: $64,000

MEA-MFT: $57,000
Montana Infrastructure Coalition: $56,000
Sierra Health Group: $56,000
Council of State Governments Justice Center: $54,000
RELX, Inc.: $53,000
Allegiance Benefit Plan Management: $52,000
Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers: $52,000
Montana League of Cities and Towns: $51,000
American Heart Association: $50,000
State Auditor: $50,000

Everytown for Gun Safety: $48,000
SEIU Healthcare: $48,000
Northwestern Energy: $48,000
Denbury Resources: $43,000
Shodair Children’s Hospital: $43,000
Montana Dental Association: $42,000
Montana Conservation Voters: $41,000
Fallon County: $40,000
CoreCivic: $40,000

Billings Clinic: $39,000
City of Billings: $39,000
AT&T: $38,000
Department of Transportation: $37,000
Kalispell Regional Healthcare: $37,000
Montana Public Employees Association: $37,000
Pfizer: $36,000
Triangle Public Affairs: $36,000
Montana Wildlife Federation: $34,000
National Wildlife Federation: $32,000
Montana Building Industry Association: $32,000
Montana Trial Lawyers Association: $32,000
Big Sky Resort Area District: $30,000
Montana Hospital Association: $30,000
Montana State AFL-CIO: $30,000
Montana State Fund: $30,000
Talen Energy: $30,000

City of Missoula: $29,000
Montana Health Care Association: $28,000
Montana Society of CPA’s: $28,000
Montana Cultural Advocacy: $26,000
Montana Farmers Union: $26,000
Montana Sheriffs and Peace Officers: $26,000
1-800-Contacts: $25,000
Compassion & Choices: $25,000
Montana Innocence Project: $24,000
PacificSource Health Plans: $24,000
Billings Chamber of Commerce: $23,000
Montana Community Colleges: $23,000
Montana Medical Association: $23,000
Northern Plains Resource Council: $23,000
St. Vincent Healthcare: $23,000
Montana Lodging & Hospitality Association: $22,000
Taylor Luther Group: $22,000
IBEW Local 44: $21,000
Conduent, Inc.: $21,000
Montana Farm Bureau: $21,000
Montana Grain Growers: $21,000
Amgen: $20,000
Montana Association of Clerks and Recorders: $20,000
Montana Water Well Drillers: $20,000
Prime Therapeutics: $20,000
Senior Water Rights Coalition: $20,000

That’s 74 lobbying groups that are spending more than $20,000.

When we total up all the healthcare related lobbying it comes to $785,000 alone.

That’s just from the 20 healthcare groups that I can identify.

Can you begin to understand why healthcare in America is so expensive?

Those companies look out for themselves, not you.

I find it interesting that cities and state departments are lobbying.

I guess that’s tax money that they use to do that, huh?

Is that a justifiable expense? I’m sure it is.

Does that make it right?

I don’t think so, and I bet most of the, say, 71,000 residents in Missoula would agree with me.

Most of the 150 legislators and the lobbyist slime that panders to them probably would not.

And that’s fine.

I’d also like to list the following lobbyists, groups that we typically think of as ‘bad.’

Despite that, these groups spent hardly any money at all:

Americans for Prosperity: $2,000
Exxon Mobil: $2,000
Phillips 66: $2,000

Here are some names I saw a lot, and for different lobbying groups.

These are professional lobbyists:

John Iverson (MT Tavern Owners Association)
Mark Baker (Mercury Public Affairs)
Shane Scanlon (ABS Legal & Mercury)
Jon Metropoulos (life insurance)
Mark Taylor (Taylor Luther Group)
Jessie Luther (Taylor Luther Group)
Aimee Grmoljez (Crowley Fleck Law)
Ed Bartlett (Ed Bartlett, LLC)

I’m sure there are many key lobbyists that I’m missing.

It’s important that we identify these individuals.

Most are out to benefit themselves while costing the state.

That’s why it’s critical to identify them. When you know who the bad guys are, you’re one step closer to defeating them.

Hell, maybe some principled legislators will read this and then in 2019 when they see these guys coming they can run.

I wouldn’t give these folks the time of day, myself.

They’re swine.

Open your eyes – these people get paid money to influence votes so they benefit whatever group they belong to.

They don’t care what the law is going to be one way or the other.

They’re just in it for the money.

Swine.

I mean, we’ve already established that money is more important to them than Montana.

Whether it’s $1 or $10,000, they’ll choose money over their town and neighbors every day of the week.

There's not a lot of difference between a lobbyist and a whore

And of course we’ll argue that some of them are good, that some of them are looking out for the interests of the state.

Says who?

Those paying them money? Those paying them lip service?

It’s all subjective. Hell, those people I listed go to bed each night thinking that they’re the good guy.

They’re not.

They’re the furthest thing from good guy that you can get.

They engage in legalized corruption, and Montana not only puts up with it, most of the people in the state don’t even know the extent of the problem.

$4.8 million.

My God.

0 Comments

Fuck You, Mary

3/31/2017

2 Comments

Well, damn that legislature.

I used to pay $9 to $12 for my smokes.

Now I’ll have to pay $10.50 to $13.50 for my roll-your-own tobacco…depending on which store I buy it at.

I’ll also have to pay $37.10 for an eighth of pot, whereas before I’d pay $35.

So for the year I’ll be paying $78 more for my smokes and perhaps $400 more a year for my pot.

Fuckin’ Tom Jacobson on that last one, as well as can’t-keep-it-in-his-pants Bullock.

Thanks legislature, fucking thanks!

God, these people.

Mary Caferro is of course the dumb broad that’s foisting this cigarette nonsense on us.

Starting April 30, I have to pay more for the exact same thing.

This is typical Democratic politics.

The argument for cigs is that it costs the state $449 million a year because people use this product.

Legislators think this will bring in $70 million a year.

Not even 50% of the money is going to smoking-related issues, however.

Most of the money goes to buildings.

The only reason healthcare workers are getting a raise is because I smoke.

And my how they’ll get their money.

$10.80 an hour by Oct. 1
$11.80 an hour by Jan. 1, 2018
$12.80 an hour by July 1, 2018
$13.80 an hour by Oct. 1, 2018.

So these healthcare workers are getting $4 more an hour over the course of the next year and a half.

Pretty damn good.

Wish I got that much, but the state only deems me important enough to bump my pay from $8.05 an hour to $8.15.

I’m not important. Healthcare workers are.

It’s just another typical Democratic wealth redistribution scheme.

And smokers aren’t even the real health problems in this country – fat people are.

We know that 15% of Americans smoke, yet 69% of Americans are overweight.

In fact, 36% of Americans are obese…more than twice the number of Americans that smoke.

6.3% are extremely obese.

Good luck getting a sugary drink tax passed, however.

Can you imagine the number of fat asses that’d come out of the woodwork to testify against that?

And please, let’s not forget how much those fat asses cost this country each year.

It’s figured our obesity epidemic is costing the country $147 billion a year.

Fat people also miss a lot of work because of their fat-related health issues, costing America between $3 and $6 billion more a year.

But what about smoking?

That is costing the country $300 billion a year and $156 billion in lost productivity.

Wow, I cannot believe that!

You’re telling me that what 15% of the country is doing is costing more than what 69% of the country is doing?

Having a smoke costs us more each year than stuffing our faces?

I don’t buy it.

Sleep apnea, for instance, is already a $7 billion a year business.

The only reason people get sleep apnea is because they’re too fat to sleep normally and have to be hooked up to a machine.

Gastric bypass surgery is expected to be a $3 billion industry by 2022.

But none of that really matters. Smoking is the real enemy…but not really.

The whole argument for this smoking tax bill was to increase the pay for healthcare workers.

I’ll bet $10 that most of those healthcare workers are dealing with problems from obesity, not smoking.

I’ll bet that many of those healthcare workers – particularly the female nurses – are overweight as well.

Remember when doctors used to smoke?

Today we shake our heads at that.

Trust me – in another few decades we’ll be shaking our heads that we ever had fat nurses and doctors.

Now, in regards to my pot…well, fuck you – that’s none of your business.

Boy I hope someone can defeat Tom Jacobson in the next election. I can't think of one way that man helps this state.

All I can really do is shake my head at how stupid our state is, and the people in it.

$150 million in taxes for Colorado last year, all from legal pot.

My, we could sure build a lot of shit we don’t need with that, huh? Maybe even give pay raises to healthcare workers that are already doing pretty good.

But we won’t do that, again, because we’re a stupid state filled with stupid people.

Oh well.

I got off pretty good from the 2015 legislature. No real tax increase and I got to drive my car 5 miles an hour faster on the interstate.

The 2017 legislature has fucked me, however.

Makin’ me pay more to smoke.

All I can say is fuck you!

2 Comments

Non-Partisan Political Thoughts

2/24/2017

0 Comments

If you want favorable writing about the Democrats, don’t come here.

If you want favorable writing about the Republicans, don’t come here.

If you want honest opinions that cut through the Party bullshit, however, then this might be the place for you.

On this site we call out the stupidity, and we call out those pushing it.

They hate this.

And that’s why you’re here.

Bubbling Discontent

Since 1973, American workers have become 72% more productive at their jobs but we’ve only gotten paid 9% more.

Those are pitchfork numbers.

Those are the numbers that should spur us to grab our pitchforks and skewer the ruling class.

What would that look like?

For a start, a complete gutting of Congress in favor of politicians that won’t take bribes from corporations.

That day will come, and I hope it’s peaceful. If our politicians don’t change – and if our employers continue to shortchange us – then it won’t be.

It’ll be violent and lots of people will die, most of them innocent.

Our Founding Fathers told us to do this.

Our current government will do everything in its power to stop us, and they’ll lose…badly.

But that’s a story for another day.

The Blame Game

Trump didn’t win.

Hillary didn’t lose.

Putin stole the election.

That’s the message that Democrats are pushing right now, and we’ll see if that message remains dominant after the Party chooses a new DNC chair tomorrow.

It’s a good message, for Hillary at least. That way she doesn’t have to shoulder any of the blame.

It also delegitimizes Trump, for if you listen to the Hillary-wing of the Party, he only won because of Russian hacking.

Lots of Democratic die-hards believe that story hook, line and sinker. Despite that, I still can’t find a single Montana person that voted for Trump because of what the Russians said or did.

I’ve found many that voted for him because they couldn’t stand Hillary, however.

Mostly, the continued acting-like-a-child behavior we see from Democrats just makes me move more to the right.

Many Americans are just like me.

Democrats currently think that yelling and screaming at town hall meetings is going to do something.

They think that clogging up representatives’ phone lines and mailboxes is going to do something.

I think they’re right.

It’ll convince more of the Silent Majority to support Trump and the Republican agenda.

Responsible Americans will grow real tired, real quick, when they keep seeing jobless Americans protesting during the noon hour, wasting representatives’ time and making it harder for those representatives to help people with actual real and legitimate needs.

No one likes a crybaby, but that’s what the Democratic Party has become.

I really do wish the Democratic Party luck. Maybe one day they’ll be relevant again.

Why Does Tom Burnett Hate Poor People?

I wonder about Tom Burnett.

Tom’s colleagues in the legislature wonder about him.

Montanans all over the state are wondering about Tom.

The reason is simple – he wants to eliminate food stamps for 15,000 people in 5,700 households via his HB 361.

The Montana Standard tells us that the bill would only give food stamps to people making 130% of the federal poverty level.

What’s more, if you have more than $5,000 in assets you won’t get food stamps.

Currently you can make 200% of the poverty level and there is no asset test required in order to get food stamps.

So why is Tom Burnett pushing this bill?

I think it’s because he hates poor people. Tom won’t admit that, of course.

“After a woman gave tearful testimony about depending on SNAP to use the rest of her income to provide safe shelter and adequate clothes for her children, both Democratic and Republican members of the committee repeatedly asked Burnett why he was introducing HB361.

Burnett avoided directly answering the question and said he understood the legislation had consequences. Rep. Tom Jacobson, D-Great Falls, asked Burnett to elaborate on what those consequences are so he could understand the impact on Montana families.

“I wouldn’t elaborate. I think your question presumes an answer,” Burnett said. “I’m not going to paint a picture.”

Chair Kirk Wagoner, R-Montana City, and Rep. Ellie Hill, D-Missoula, also asked why Burnett wanted 15,000 Montanans to be disqualified from SNAP.

“You want us in this committee to get them off SNAP for a reason you’re not willing to disclose, but it will also cost the state more money,” Hill said.”

Why does Tom Burnett hate poor people?

Where did he get those ideas? Were they instilled in him by his parents growing up in Sheridan?

I’m not real familiar with that area of the state, but it’s only an hour south of Butte.

What happened there in 1954 to make Tom Burnett hate poor people so much?

That’s the year he was born, right after the Korean War was winding down and ten years after WWII ended.

We know that area of the state – Madison County – had 11% to 20% of its people on federal relief during the Great Depression.

Federal relief. Food stamps.

I bet Tom’s parents might have benefited from those food stamps during the 1930s. Probably could have used 'em in the 50s, too.

I mean, they had 9 kids on dad’s school teacher salary. Mom didn’t work, she stayed home and made sure the family could scrape by.

Perhaps Tom’s thinking changed in 1976 when he started working on his church’s welfare committee.

I feel sorry for those people – if Tom hates poor Montana strangers so much that he wants to withhold food from them, how badly does he hate those he does know?

Perhaps his work on the Council for Families in the late-90s and early-2000s shaped his thinking.

I’m sorry, I’m just trying to figure out how this kid growing up in a huge family on a farm with just one salary can turn into someone that no longer remembers the hardships of his youth.

I guess he thinks that everyone today can milk a cow out back or go harvest some vegetables from the vegetable patch like he and his family did.

Tom, this ain’t the 50s anymore.

Remember, Tom was born in the good ol’ Boomer days of 1954. He graduated high school in the early-70s.

There was no need for Tom to go to Vietnam, not when he could help out on the farm and attend MSU in Bozeman.

Tom got his degrees in horticulture and agriculture science back when a year of college cost about $3,500.

Today it costs $17,000 for a year at MSU.

He’s a successful businessman, having started Marathon Seat Covers way back in 1978 before selling it to investment firm Montana Ventures LLC in 2007.

When you look at the 15 reviews on Google that talk about his company, they mostly say the same thing – good product, terrible customer service.

I wonder why the customer service at Marathon Seat Covers is so bad.

Probably a mix of work culture, hiring, expectations, and staff morale.

Well, not all of use can start our own businesses and then sell them 30 years later.

Most of us have moved off the farm as well, if our families ever had one to begin with.

And guess what, college ain’t a couple thousand dollars anymore. It’s a lot more, and working your way through it like Tom might have done is an option few can manage.

But who am I trying to convince?

Tom lives in a sparse, rural district and he knows he only needs a few hundred people to vote for him.

Why should he care about the rest of the state when it’s so easy for him to get elected?

Fewer than 8,000 people live in Madison County and in 2000 they made about $30,233 a year per household. The average household size was two.

That came to about $2,500 a month.

The federal poverty level for a household of two is $15,930 a year. Double that to the 200% level and you’d get $31,860.

Let’s fast forward to 2010.

Median income for the county’s households shot up to $42,998. The number of families living in poverty dropped by 2%, though the number of youths and seniors living in poverty went up by 2% at the same time.

Many households in Tom Burnett’s home county would be considered poverty-ridden.

They’d currently qualify for food stamps.

Tom Burnett, however, wants to change that.

He doesn’t want them to get food stamps anymore. He thinks the federal government shouldn’t give people money to buy food.

Why?

How’d Tom get like this?

We know that food stamps bring in $200 million a year to the state’s businesses. No other economic stimulus is as direct, or beneficial, for regular people.

We know that Tom’s plan to curtail food stamps in Montana will force the state to spend $1 million on new staff and computer updates.

Not only does Tom hate the idea of poor people getting help, he’s a Republican that wants to increase the state bureaucracy.

Now, perhaps Tom didn’t think about all this when he drafted the bill.

Maybe he didn’t realize how poor his county was, or how many young and old people there depend on federal help.

Perhaps he thought his time finds its best use when hindering poor people, not helping them with new job opportunities or higher income.

You see, Tom doesn’t really concern himself with why people are poor or how they got that way.

He’s not poor, so why should he worry about them?

After several people spoke against Tom’s idea, Tom backtracked a bit and said he’d “be open to allow one vehicle to not count against a family when evaluating their assets.”

What a swell guy.

Special Election Thoughts

James Conner tells us that Amanda Curtis is no fan of the First Amendment.

I guess taking photos is a freedom of speech issue.

I think Curtis comes to this mindset because of the treatment she received from the video trackers during the 2014 campaign.

Here’s the one that followed Curtis and John Lewis around.

And just to be fair, here’s the one that the Montana Democrats hired to follow Greg Gianforte around in 2016.

Ah…gotcha politics – gotta love it!

We know both parties are scum, and we know both will whine and piss themselves trying to convince us they’re not.

I hope that Curtis doesn’t get the nomination.

Hey, I’d love to vote for Curtis should she run in 2018, win the primary, and then become the general election candidate.

She’s never had to do that before, run the gauntlet if you will.

By doing it that way Montana will have signaled that they want her, at least the Democratic-portion of the state.

But just giving it to her again? Go that route and I’m confident she’ll lose.

She lost last time, by a big margin. There are plenty of excuses to explain this loss, but you won’t hear them from me.

But maybe this time will be different, right? Yeah, keep dreamin'.

When it comes to Kelly McCarthy, I see he did a Facebook Q&A session last night.

I’m not sure how many people tuned-in for that, but at least he’s trying. I’ll tell you – he did a lot better than I would have done.

It’s hard building excitement, and it’s hard building political support online. It’s why 100 people have bought my book Social Media Politics, and I bet that includes some of our special election candidates.

Rob Quist still has the best shot at winning, and I’ll increase his odds a bit.

GOP voters are beginning to turn on Gianforte. The Sales speech had more of an effect than we think.

You can really see it in Essman’s fear that the special election might be mail-in-ballot-only.

If so, more Democrats will vote. Essman is worried about this because he knows that Gianforte lost in November.

If Gianforte loses two statewide elections 7 months apart, the GOP will have no choice but to jettison him…meaning they lay down the law that he’s not going to get any support should he go for another statewide run.

There are thoughts in the Party right now about jettisoning him, but Gianforte still has a lot of support.

Should he lose in June, that support will dry up like a shallow puddle on a sunny day.

A month ago when Gianforte got in it I told you that the special election was over.

I still think it’s over – Democrats haven’t been able to win this seat in 20 years, and I don’t see that changing – it’s just that the vote might be closer.

A mail-in-only election isn’t going to mean shit – Democrats will still have abysmal turnout.

Yep, you can see the foaming-at-the-mouth types marching and protesting and making noise on social media.

But get them to fill out a one-page ballot, put a stamp on it, and get it into the mail?

Nope, ain’t gonna happen.

“Data from Montana in the 2016 cycle showed Democrats dominated early voting,” KGVO News tell us. “Democrat candidates for President, Congress and Governor consistently over-performed among voters who said they had already cast their ballots.”

Despite that, Dems could only win one of those races – that of governor.

We already know that off-year elections see a 35% turnout in Montana.

Mail-in ballots are expected to “increase that turnout substantially.”

So…what does ‘substantially’ mean?

Are we talking 10% more in turnout…20%?

Surely we’re not talking about an extra 30% turnout, a veritable doubling…are we?

And even if 65-70% of Montana voters voted, would that translate into a Democratic win?

I don’t think so.

If it’s Quist, of course Dems will have their best showing. He has the best shot at winning, but I still think he’ll come up short, 51% to 49% or thereabouts.

Anyone else and we might as well just start planning for 2018 right now as opposed to July.

(I really need to stop using we as I sure ain’t a Democrat no more).

Trump’s Marijuana Policy

I smoke pot a lot.

It’s easy for me to do that as I have a prescription to medical marijuana.

I’ve had that prescription since 2014.

Not that I need it, however.

I’ve been smoking pot for damn-near 20 years, and that includes 2 of the years I lived in China.

Over there we just bought hash as it was hard to find actual marijuana buds. Sometimes they’d come through, but the quality wasn’t that good.

But drugs in China is a story for another day.

Mainly, lots of Americans are just like me.

13% of the country smokes pot regularly, according to Gallup, which is double the amount that did so a decade ago.

More than 41 million people.

They did a poll of 1,023 people last August and found that 43% of Americans have tried marijuana.

We know that here in Montana, 10% of the state has smoked marijuana in the past month…according to a 2014 New York Times story.

I’m sure that number has gone up since then.

And my how society has suffered!

I mean, how about those stories about marijuana smokers:

Breaking into businesses to steal goods
Beating up their significant other
Filling up our jails to overflowing

Killing each other and leaving the bodies in strange places
Robbing gas stations to pay for the habit
Driving the wrong way down the highway
Abusing and neglecting their kids
Losing everything to live on the street
Serious medical hardships because of their use
Committing incest with their kids

Oh, that’s right…we only hear those stories when the drug is alcohol or meth.

Marijuana isn’t dangerous, unless you’re the for-profit prison industry, pain-pill-pushin’ Big Pharma, or old, white politicians that take bribes from large corporations and then vote as those corporations wish.

If you’re a regular American, marijuana isn’t dangerous, just the policy surrounding it.

Quinnipiac University recently did a poll that said 71% of Americans support legalized marijuana in the states that have it.

Another 59% of Americans support legalizing marijuana in every state.

Yep, the writing’s on the wall.

State’s like Colorado have $1 billion in marijuana sales and they make $200 million in taxes from that.

Are the feds going to make up that $200 million budget shortfall?

Nope, and that’s why states like Colorado will fight Trump tooth and nail on marijuana policy.

I’m thankful for that. The issue will go to the Supreme Court, and then we’ll have a ruling.

I fully expect to see legal marijuana nationally after that happens. I mean, c'mon - gay people can get married but I can't smoke a doobie?

It’s all in the money – the states need it, the feds can’t give it to ‘em, but marijuana can.

It’ll be fun to see what happens with Trump and his marijuana policies.

Won’t affect me one bit.

Final Note

I’ll take this final moment to once again apologize for our two Democratic mouthpiece blogs.

Montana Cowgirl has put up about 2 posts a day over the past week.

I can’t identify a good one amongst the bunch.

Intelligent Discontent continues to harp on Zinke and Daines as if this will somehow put someone new into office.

Mainly, I’m sorry you have to read this stuff.

I guess this stuff excites the base (sorry, their base).

I guess this is a viable strategy to take back the statehouse, the statewides, and the legislature…not to mention a federal office or two.

I guess a lot of people like it, but remember, these are the same folks that keep voting for Democrats only to see them lose.

I guess…but gosh darn, I don’t think these tactics are working.

You know my stance – the current strategy ain’t working.

Yet we see it again and again.

I’m sorry – I don’t know what to say.

Well, I do actually – fuck ‘em.

I’m not going to apologize for it anymore, I’m going to encourage it.

I hope we see more of the same on these sites. It’s great for the GOP, and just another signal they’re winning.

0 Comments

Visiting the Legislature

1/16/2017

0 Comments

Since I was in Helena today I took the opportunity to go up and visit the Montana Legislature.

Yes, it’s a federal holiday, but our legislature doesn’t abide by those quaint notions, not when there’s work to do.

There was work to do today, though to many of us with regular 9-to-5 jobs, it wouldn’t appear as such.

No, mostly our legislators put on their fancy suits, don their shiny shoes, tie up those ties, and apply the cologne and/or perfume.

After that they go to certain rooms for their committee meetings.

This is where the real distinctions begin.

Some legislators sit back, listening patiently.

Others fiddle about on their computers or their phones.

Many utilize their No. 2 pencils for taking notes on yellow legal pads.

Lots flip through papers, perhaps the bill under consideration, perhaps something else.

All sit down, though sometimes one or two will get up, head to the water cooler, the coffee table, or even step out of the room for a moment.

Typically that’s the morning’s ‘work,’ and then in the afternoon the legislators will be rounded up for voting in the appropriate chambers.

More talking happens, then the voting takes place.

There might be a few meetings in the afternoon, but for the most part, that’s it.

Pretty easy.

Legislators are paid $82.64 a day for that plus another $109.78 a day in per diem.

So for a 5-day week they’ll make $962.10.

For a standard 2-week paycheck that comes out to $1,924.20.

And let’s not forget the free health insurance that they all get.

Altogether their pay comes to $3,848 a month, and that’s more than enough to cover the apartment rental that many have to take out.

Even if you figure $800 a month for rent in their hometown, plus $800 a month for a place in Helena, our legislators would still have $2,248 left over each month.

Not too shabby at all.

So I thought I’d go up and see these folks in action today, at least for a little bit.

Here’s what I saw.

Musseling In

The Long Range Planning Committee met at 10 AM in Room 303, the old Supreme Court Chambers. They met for just half an hour.

Members of the committee included Mike Hopkins of Missoula, Jim Keane of Butte, Mike Cuffe of Eureka and Janet Ellis of Helena.

The topic of discussion was mussels.

Besides the legislators there were about 35 people in attendance.

This has been a big story in Montana.

Currently the state might have to pay $167 million to clean up this problem.

That’s a lot of money, so it was good to hear what people had to say.

I arrived at 10:07 and someone in a suit was talking. I suppose he was talking for a good 7 minutes, as the chair of the committee – Rep. Carl Glimm of Kila – said the pace was too slow and things would have to pick up.

After that another man in a suit got up to talk, one with the DNRC.

He mentioned that lots of agencies are out looking for these invasive species.

A huge component to this problem is education and outreach. This needs to be increased if we want to deal with this issue properly.

A rapid response plan is called for, one that coordinates all the existing response plans.

One man mentioned that there’s a huge question mark surrounding the economics of this issue.

There has not been an invasive species budget approved by Congress, and no money is forthcoming from the Bureau of Reclamation.

Representative Cuffe mentioned that he’s reached out to Ryan Zinke about this issue.

Around 10:15 the committee called for the members of the incident command team to stand up and be noted. There were about 10 of them present.

There is an incident command post in the basement of the DNRC Building, for those wanting more information.

At that point those folks all left. A bunch of other people took the opportunity to leave as well.

When it was all said and done there were about 10 to 15 people still there.

The next person discussed economic impacts for the State of Washington when it comes to invasive species.

It comes to $1.3 billion a year.

The Cost of Invasive Weeds

The meeting continued.

Jane Mangold, an associate professor from UM, got up next and spoke about invasive terrestrial plants.

She mentioned that there are 8.2 million Montana acres that have noxious weeds.

We have 33 species on our noxious weeds list, with 2 more about to join the list.

Invasive plants are associated with:

Decreased native plants
Decreased amounts of wildlife habitat
Increased erosion
Increased risk of wildfires
Decreased recreational values
Decreased aesthetic value

Invasive plants cost the US economy $27 million annually.

No reports have been done for Montana since the 1990s but those reports found that knapweed alone costs us $14 million a year.

When you factor in all the species it comes to about $129 million a year.

Grazing units are losing $1.29 an acre on average, or what amounts to $65,000 a year for landowners.

Next up was Chip Webber, the Forest Supervisor for the Flathead National Forest.

He’s represented Region 1 for many years and worries about our risk of exposure to invasive species because of how many unattended bodies of water we have.

Most costs go to mitigation efforts. Just in the Flathead they provide $70,000 annually to the inspection stations.

After that I left this meeting to see what else was going on.

The House Business and Labor Committee

I arrived at the House Business and Labor Committee meeting at 10:30. It was in Room 172.

There were 18 people on this House Committee, including such legislators as Amanda Curtis of Butte, Willis Curdy of Missoula, Casey Schreiner of Great Falls, and Moffie Funk of Helena.

There were about 12 people in this meeting, not counting the legislators.

Lots of legislators were out in the hallway ‘shooting the shit.’ I suppose many had been in the previous committee meeting.

Representative Gordon Pierson was one of those legislators, and he came into the committee meeting about 4 minutes late.

Up for discussion was HB 223 to revise laws relating to title insurance.

It would eliminate errors and the bill would not cost the state a thing, the bill’s sponsor – Republican Representative Geraldine Custer of Forsyth – mentioned.

First we had Custer get up to introduce the bill, then we had a young woman get up to speak in favor of the bill.

I got the impression that this was a rather boring piece of legislation before the committee today.

I found it boring, and that’s what most of the legislature’s work is – boring.

It’s mundane work of government, changing some rules, tweaking others, and adding a few more.

Most of these changes cost money, though occasionally we get rarities like HB 223 that do not.

After that we had the President of the Montana Land Title Association get up to speak in favor of this bill.

He started off by mentioning how boring the title insurance industry can be, but he mentioned it’s important for our ability to buy and sell land.

He talked about going back into the public record to build a “title plant” to determine a piece of land’s history.

Another person got up to speak for this bill. His talk focused on ways to eliminate risk when it comes to drawing up and transferring titles.

So we had about 3 proponents for the bill and after that a woman named Sara Rehm got up. She’s affiliated with an eastern Montana title company.

She was going to oppose this bill, but because of some kind of discussion that had taken place in the hallway, she decided to withdraw her opposition to this bill.

That brings up some interesting aspects of the legislature – what happens in hallways, cloakrooms, and other places such as that?

Who knows? It’s not a matter of public record. Something happened out there today, however, and perhaps that’s what was keeping Representative Pierson from getting to the meeting on time.

Representative Willis Curdy was curious about why she changed her opposition to the bill and called her up to ask her that.

The issue got back to those title plants, or privately maintained title records.

Record keeping is spotty, with no consistency between counties.

That’s the gist of what her opposition was about. This had the potential to limit a consumer’s choices in what title companies they could use.

Amanda Curtis then asked about fees for accessing title plants, and since they’re privately maintained, there is a fee.

We couldn’t determine what the average fee was, mainly because it was not given nor asked for.

It was determined that there is no fee for accessing county records.

After that the bill’s sponsor got up and gave a long spiel in favor.

It was 11:10 AM by that point and the committee decided to take a 5-minute break before doing anything else.

I decided to get up and leave.

Conclusion

The Montana Legislature is pretty boring.

It’s like going to boring university lectures all day, for the most part.

If you’re not paid to be there or paid to follow it, it’d be a real chore to do so.

Still, by going to the legislature and poking around a bit you get a better feel for things than you would if you’re just watching the committee or floor videos.

You get to see more of the audience, more of the people walking around in the hallways, and more of the various legislators sitting around looking bored.

Nearly everyone is wearing a suit or some other nice attire. Most people are old.

Most of the issues under discussion won’t affect you.

Today I heard about invasive mussels and weeds, as well as private title records.

Sure, you might use a boat a lot and mussels might cut off your access to some waterways.

Maybe you have cattle and noxious weeds are ruining your grazing land.

Perhaps you have some land to swap and you want a better process when it comes to your title.

But for most Montanans, these will never be issues.

Lots of people in this state are poor, barely getting by. They’re not buying boats and hitting up the lake. They sure aren’t swapping land.

The minimum wage bill that was before the Business and Labor Committee would have had a much bigger impact on a lot more people than the bills I heard today.

That one will likely be tabled, however, meaning it’ll be dead.

Happens a lot in the legislature.

With the GOP in control it means rich property owners take precedence over poor working stiffs.

Voting could change that, but Dems don’t have a message that appeals to people in Kila, Eureka, Colstrip, and other such places.

Perhaps they will in the future. We’ll see.

Until then, enjoy reading about the legislature in the newspapers, on the TV websites, and on a few blogs.

The coverage is spotty, but better than nothing.

The more reporting on the legislature's deeds and shenanigans, the better.

I hope you enjoyed this report. Thanks!

0 Comments

Digging Into Montana’s Spending Woes

1/6/2017

1 Comment

Near Anaconda

You might have heard about the Bozeman man that hit his wife over the head with a frying pan on New Year’s Eve and killed her.

The couple’s three children were sleeping in the living room at the time.

Then there’s the real piece of work from Deer Lodge that stabbed his ex-girlfriend in the neck several times until she was dead.

He used a butcher knife.

Those two will be going into our prison system for a long time, probably for the rest of their lives.

Let’s say that’s around 50 years.

We know it costs about $31,000 a year to house a man in Montana’s prisons.

That means each of these men will cost taxpayers $1,550,000.

Those men are just two reasons why we see nearly $83 million going to the Department of Corrections’ secure custody facilities in 2018, according to HB 2.

Another $69 million is going to probation and parole programs for the 8,500 individuals that need them.

Another $14 million is going to our youth services division to deal with troubled youth and $24 million goes to our critical services division.

I don’t even know what that last one does, but altogether and with a few more things thrown in, we’re spending $209 million on corrections next year.

The vast majority of that money is required simply to clean up the problems that our society produces.

Murders, thefts, drugs…you name it.

It costs a lot to clean up those messes, and then to house the people that created them.

Sure, we could kill more of these folks, but we’d still be spending tens of millions of dollars each year on the same issues.

Back in 2001 the Department of Corrections had 1,025 employees and was only getting $93.7 million.

Today it’s 1,400 employees and $209 million.

My how our problems have grown

Bullock proposed $74 million in state agency spending cuts even before the legislative session started.

At the same time the legislature expects state agencies to cut their budgets, the legislature’s own budget has jumped by 14%.

This is the $11.5 million HB 1, and it breaks down like so:

Senate: $3.8 million
House: $6.1 million
Legislative Services Division: $1.1 million

Why is it costing so much for these legislators to meet?

“Higher salaries for new staff” as well as offsetting “non-session costs of serving in the Legislature,” MTN News tells us.

We already know that legislative costs in 2019 will be 9% higher than they were in 2015.

And please do not forget that all 150 legislators get 2 years worth of healthcare even though they only work for 90 days during that time.

None of them are required to pay the high Obamacare premiums, none of them are required to pay the high Obamacare deductibles.

So don’t be fooled by their cries over people losing coverage – our legislators aren’t losing shit.

Of all the people in state government, our legislators have it the cushiest and the coziest and give us little to show for it.

We still have the issue of the legislature demanding more cuts from state agencies.

This at a time when no one has enough money, and many agencies are asking for more already.

The Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education is asking for another $385,000 for its budget, for instance.

The reason is simple – they need that money to cover the STEM scholarships that students have already been promised for spring semester.

Why the money isn’t there is a bit more difficult, but ultimately comes down to the Montana Lottery, accounting mistakes, its director, and the fact that it “did not generate enough revenue to pay the scholarships.”

The Montana Lottery will be getting $5.4 million in their budget for 2018.

That’d be a great place to get the money for the scholarships that lots of Montana families are counting on.

But what are the other state agencies supposed to do…and is demanding these cuts really in the state’s long-term best interests?

Remember, if we cut spending at the state level it often means our cities or counties will raise taxes to make up for the budget shortfalls that they inevitably experience.

One way or the other, you’re paying for this.

And is that such a bad thing?

Take the story about the 14 dead kids.

The only one we really hear about is the young baby that died in the crib in winter weather when the window was open.

A big problem is that the legislature stopped budgeting the money for the agencies to even keep track of this kind of stuff.

Currently protecting kids falls under the authority of the Child and Family Services Division.

They’re getting $83.3 million in 2018, according to HB 2.

They fall under the purview of the Department of Public Health and Human Services, which is getting $1.9 billion in 2018.

That’s a lot of money.

The Senior and Long Term Care Division of DPHHS, for example, gets $309 million for 2018.

The Developmental Services Division gets $308 million.

The Health Resources Division gets $802 million.

I can understand why the GOP committees want to talk with those various divisions – they want to figure out why things cost so much.

I hope those agencies have the answer.

One final issue before I leave you today involves the courts, the county jails, and the rising costs associated with them.

If the state isn’t going to fund those things then your local taxes will go up.

It sucks, but what other option is there…let DUI offenders just drive away because there’s no where to put them?

I still believe we’ll have to have a conversation about legalizing marijuana.

We need the money, badly.

What other options are there?

Sales taxes…more taxes on the rich…sin taxes…medical marijuana taxes?

There aren’t a whole lot of good options that'll carry us through long-term.

Perhaps we’ll hear legislators talk more about this as the next few weeks progress.

Maybe we'll hear some ideas. Maybe some new faces will make a name for themselves.

Most of them have been silent. It’s mainly been party-approved spokespeople so far.

Maybe that’ll change as the work of government picks up.

1 Comment

Slow News Days…or Just Shoddy MT Journalism?

1/4/2017

1 Comment

MT Capitol in 1913

It seemed like a pretty slow day in Montana news yesterday…at least early in the day.

That’s to be expected.

Besides the legislature – which started on Monday – most people were just getting back to work after the holiday.

I guess when I say most people I mean those with kids.

Yeah, school started again yesterday. I was very grateful that I managed to get up early and get my son off to school.

It’s tough that first day back, and I’m sure many around the state were feeling it.

Oh well; the kids were ready for bed earlier last night, and that offered some respite.

I hope this post offers you some respite from your otherwise boring day.

We’ll discuss state records a bit, talk about the special election, get into what’s in the infrastructure bill, discuss why Montana reporters are colluding with Democrats to release false numbers, and finally we’ll mention an old alcoholic that ran a university.

Enjoy!

State Records

Something else that’s ready for bed is the issue of the state emails, at least if you look at it from the Democrats’ point of view.

James Conner had a post up the other day saying that some “Democratic leaders are starting to look like fools on the issue of retaining emails and other official documents.”

It gets back to a report that IR reporter Jayme Fraser did on Monday on the fact that “not a single email is stored in state archives” even though “state law requires emails of importance to be preserved.”

It’s just not a high priority, and that led Conner to wonder what Dems are trying to hide from the public.

I’m a big fan of record retention, and allowing easy access to them.

I feel we need to get all our old PDFs and other files into text format that you can read on a website.

That way Google can index it all and it’s easy to search.

Heck, have a state website/search engine that allows me to type in a name or date or expense record and have everything with that come up.

It means more openness and transparency in government, and since taxpayers paid for the creation of all those records in the first place, it’s a good idea.

I know the state has time. The Secretary of State’s office has already updated their website, after all.

Special Election Talk

Something else that’s up is my hair – it’s standing on end.

What in the hell is going on with Hillary staffers taking over the Democratic National Committee?

I saw the story last night and then James Conner had something up today on it.

“…political suicide, the only thing Democrats still do well,” Conner wrote of the decision to have the DNC war room staffed with “Democratic establishment operatives who helped Hillary lose the election.”

Oh well.

I think it’s pretty clear looking at the Montana Democratic Party that Dems haven’t learned a damn thing since November.

It’ll be amusing watching them muddle about in the coming months.

I fully expect them to lose the upcoming special election for Zinke’s seat.

Hell, Nancy Keenan is still calling the shots for the Party!

We know how well her ideas ‘work.’ Logicosity had a good post ripping apart her silly fundraising request.

Why anyone would donate to the Montana Democratic Party while she’s in charge is beyond me – just pissing money away.

Currently I’m most interested in supporting Casey Schriener for Zinke’s seat.

He’s a legislator from Great Falls, and I know absolutely nothing about him.

I do know that he’s never lost a statewide race before, like Amanda Curtis has.

If Curtis couldn’t do it in 2014, how’s she going to do it in 2017?

Until someone can give me an answer to that question, I see no reason to get excited about Curtis.

Pete Talbot over at Intelligent Discontent thinks that a network of staff and support will help with that.

Sadly, because Brian Schweitzer hasn’t made his intentions clear yet, many candidates are unsure if they should start the money-raising game yet.

Well…why wait on Schweitzer?

Montana Democrats need to get over this hangup that Brian Schweitzer is the only thing that can save them.

He’s not.

It’s actually got very little to do with Schweitzer at all – it’s his ideas, his message, his tone, and his penchant for not giving a damn.

That’s what people like, and any circus trainer can make a candidate jump through those hoops.

That’s why I like the idea of giving someone else a chance.

And really, if you haven’t said anything by January 20th, then to hell with you – those that have declared their interest will get my support and anyone after that date can rely on the state press for their publicity.

What’s the Infrastructure Bill?

According to the Montana newspapers, the infrastructure bill being carried by Jim Keane is $293 million.

Don’t ask me where they got that number, and please don’t ask what the bill number is.

I’ve been asking for about 12 hours now and no one will tell me.

I think it’s shoddy journalism.

I think reporters just made that number up.

We have the statehouse reporters just going with what the Dems tell them, which is this $293 million number.

Nowhere was I able to find a bill with that amount…yet.

I looked through every bill that Jim Keane has signed-off on and there’s nothing about this $293 million.

So our state newspapers are actually lying to us right now.

No one is calling them out on this.

That’s sad – the corporate collar is back in full-swing for another Montana legislative session.

So what do we know?

HB 2 is the 39-page General Appropriations bill and it has $4.93 billion in state spending in it right now.

HB 5 is Long Range Building Appropriations bill, and it has tens of millions of dollars earmarked for various agency projects, many of which have been approved and just need to be signed-off on.

HB 11 is the Treasure State Endowment Program, which will give $1 million to local governments via the Department of Commerce.

HB 14 is the Jobs in Montana Program, which gives $50 million in grants to local governments for infrastructure.

All of those bills are being carried by Jim Keane, the man that all the newspapers said had signed the fiscal note for this new infrastructure bill.

Well…what is the note…what is the bill?

I want to know that so I can look the bill up and begin going through it with a fine-toothed comb.

Perhaps that’s why the press is shy about giving us that information – they don’t want us ripping it apart.

Or it could just be shoddy journalism, which is what I call it when you leave critical information out of a report.

To our reporters, however, maybe that’s not critical.

To their way of thinking, it’s not the public’s job to go and look up bills and read them, it’s their job.

If you had more people like me doing that, what would we need those reporters for anyways?

That’s kind of been the trend for the past decade, however – go to places online to get your news so you don’t have to pay shoddy reporters for it.

What’s In the Infrastructure Bill?

I was able to dig through HB 2 a bit, and here are a few tidbits:

The university Student Assistance Program will be getting a paltry $9.6 million in 2018.

The Department of Transportation Construction Program will be getting $318 million for 2018 and $377 million for 2019.

The Commissioner of Political Practices Office is getting $771,000 for 2018.

Overall, HB 2 has about $4.9 billion in spending, with $2.1 billion coming to us free from the feds and the other $2.03 billion coming from the state’s general fund.

So I’m sorry that I can’t give you more on what’s in the main infrastructure bill.

I blame reporters for that, and I blame Democrats.

Both should have been putting this information out there.

The fact that they didn’t makes me wonder…what don’t they want me to know?

I figure it’s Romney Hall and the Heritage Center – two boondoggles that helped sink infrastructure last time (not the $92 million in infrustructure we actually funded with smaller bills, however).

It could also be the heavy reliance on bonding.

I heard HD 94’s Kim Dudik talking on the radio yesterday about bonding, and how if we do that we can have it all – infrastructure and taxpayer-funded preschool!

That’s true, it just means going into debt when there’s absolutely no reason for us to.

Please, don’t forget that we’re set to raise taxes by $123 million this year…and there is absolutely no reason to.

Well, there’s one reason – Bullock’s bromance.

For years now our governor has had a hard-on for the cool sum of $300 million.

He loves that number, loves the idea of that much of your money sitting in the bank in Helena…or wherever the rich bankers put it.

Please, don’t forget that to have such a high surplus of cash we’d need to take yours, to the tune of $123 million.

Sure, we could have a $177 million surplus without raising taxes…but that’s not the Democratic way.

The Democratic way is to take money from rich people that worked hard – and in many cases simply stole through legal means – so they can shuffle that money around, fund programs, but mostly keep it in the bank.

See, by keeping that money in the bank we can keep our ‘good’ credit rating.

With a ‘good’ credit rating the rich bankers will allow us to borrow more money.

That works really well for rich bankers as they don’t pay interest on their loans, so when we give them more money they have more to lend out at those reduced rates.

The Federal Reserve – a foreign bank that’s never once been audited – ensures it stays this way.

It’s all a big mess, does nothing to benefit you or your family, and I’m glad we have a GOP-controlled legislature to stop this nonsense.

Personally, I’d rather have my money in my pocket and if the state needs more, they can figure out what to do with the money I’ve already given them.

That’s how it’ll turn out this session – Bullock will be forced to accept a smaller surplus, infrastructure will be more cash than bonding, and very few new programs will be started.

Or did Democrats have some kind of leverage that I wasn’t aware of that will allow them to get their way?

No, I didn’t think so.

Dennison Dies

Another failed-historian kicks the bucket.

Yes, George Dennison has died, the longest-serving president of UM.

My, he really drove that place into the ground, huh?

Oh, I guess you could say he boosted donations by $100 million, and that did help with building tons of new buildings, but gosh…so what?

What difference does it make if you boosted enrollment by around 6,000 students if most of those gains are now wiped out?

What difference does it make if a year of college back when his presidency started was around $5,000 and today it’s about $15,000?

What difference does it make if most of our graduates are moving out of state and all we get moving in to replace them are rich transplants?

What difference does it make?

Let’s not forget it was the campus atmosphere that Dennison helped create that directly led to the U’s current problems.

What are those problems?

Booze.

Dennison was a boozer, big time. I’d call him an alcoholic, actually. I figure he got up really early to run each morning so he could work that booze out of his system.

I always wondered too if he lost most of his teeth due to problems with his alcoholism.

Who knows.

Of course, much like Engen’s alcoholism, the Missoula press didn’t report on Dennison’s either.

I took the opportunity to schedule a meeting with Dennison on December 8, 2006.

I remember the day because it was the last Friday night football game of the season, one where they brought the lights in.

We ended up losing that game, and I think I lost all credibility with Dennison that morning too.

I didn’t talk with him long, just 5 or so minutes. I could tell right away that he didn’t want to meet with some student, especially when he just did so for the Kaimin earlier that week.

One thing I remember is asking him what he’d do when he was done being president (which I hoped would be soon, though it took a few more years).

He said he really wanted to write a book on the early land-grant colleges of Montana. I thought that was interesting, but alas, Dennison never did that.

It’s odd.

Here’s a guy with a BA in History from UM, and a MA as well. He even got a doctorate somewhere!

Yet despite all that schooling, the man was only able to write one book in his lifetime, and that on a long-forgotten UM professor.

Well, I guess if that’s what someone as educated as he was wanted to spend his time on, oh well.

To me, however, it points to failure.

Dennison could have given us so much more – books on Montana history, university history, Missoula history, political history, and even manuals for his successors on how to run a university.

He gave us none of that, however.

He did give us the culture of beer and circus, and for that, UM alumni will be forever grateful.

Most students in the state won’t pay much attention to the passing of Dennison.

Many have no idea who he is.

Most of them go to Bozeman now, after all.

1 Comment

Tips for Montana Legislators

12/24/2016

2 Comments

Click for the official legislature page

In a week or so a bunch of people from around the state will go to Helena.

They’ll stay there for 4 months.

They’ll feel important, self-righteous, and like they’re making a difference.

None of that will prove true, aside from the 4 months part.

I mean, c’mon…these are legislators!

“When I was in the legislature we weren’t worth the $10 a day we were getting then and I don’t think legislators are worth that much now,” former Montana governor John Aronson told reporters in 1975, and his words hold true today.

Don’t get all starry-eyed about this session.

Instead, narrow your eyes and take a hard look at these people.

They get paid a ton of money to sit on their asses in fine chairs in a nice building, and most of them don’t do any work.

So hold them accountable. You know damn-well that our state news media won’t.

Alright.

So now that we got that out of the way, let’s offer these legislators some tips.

Most are too proud to take them, and that’s fine – it’s why we have term limits.

For the few smart ones, however, perhaps they’ll learn something.

Let’s get started.

Communication

If you can’t communicate you’re not going to do too well in the legislature.

You won’t do too well with the public.

You won’t do too well with getting more name recognition.

You won’t do too well when it comes time to get reelected, either.

So I encourage legislators to talk with reporters, either on the air with the TV stations, in the basement with the newspaper reporters, or in back hallways with those that can get your words out.

And don’t forget to write yourself.

Submit guest posts to blogs – I’m sure MT Cowturd will take ‘em for Democrats while Republican Uprising might be a good platform for some GOPers.

Hell, if some ambitious legislator wanted to get their message out on this site, I’d even consider a guest post.

I think we all know that won’t happen, however, as most legislators would probably consider seeing their name on my site to be a black mark against them.

Oh well.

The point is, you have to be seen and heard or you’re just one more name out of 150 that most people will never hear, or care about.

Having a Blog

Back in the 2015 session, Missoula rep Ellie Hill started a blog.

I was impressed.

I was also saddened, as the blog just had the one post.

She had the right idea, but I feel she found out how hard blogging can be…especially if you do image-heavy posts.

That’s why I encourage legislators to do two things:

Have simple blogs.

Team-up to lessen your blogging workload.

I think the Democratic women could do really well with this. Maybe five of them could team-up and each could put up one post a week.

Follow Logicosity’s model – a simple design with text.

That’s all people want – words they can read, ideas they can toss around.

Maybe we’ll see some more legislators blogging this year.

Some might even do video blogging, or vlogging, as Amanda Curtis did back in the 2013 session.

It’s hard to do that each day, but for some, it might be easier than writing.

The point is, you want to get your ideas and your message out there.

Blogs – whether yours or one of the established ones in the state – are a great way to do that.

Using #mtpol

If you want to know about Montana happenings very quickly, go to Twitter’s #mtpol.

Just type that into Google, “#mtpol” – it’ll come up.

Some might want you to think that #mtleg or maybe even Facebook is where new happens, but that’s just not true.

Oh, and news isn’t happening in the Capitol.

New happens when the pubic hears about it.

Used to be they’d hear about it in the newspapers, then on the TV.

Who has time for scheduled programming at 5:00 or 10:30, though?

No one, that’s why they want their news now.

Twitter’s #mtpol gives it to them, and I’d encourage you to learn it’s in’s and out's and in-betweens.

Getting Results Online

Using Twitter can be an interesting thing.

What are you trying to do…what are you looking for?

When it comes to social media, you’re trying to get a message across.

One of the best ways to have a message is to have a platform.

You probably have one with Facebook, and that’s great – everyone in your little bubble will hear what you have to say.

What about everyone outside your bubble?

They’re not going to go to your Facebook page, but they might go to a more public forum.

That’s Twitter, and specifically, #mtpol.

So what results are you looking for…the inconsequential and short-term-oriented ‘likes’ or the longer-term and more-lasting click-throughs?

I feel the latter is the way to go.

When it comes to my Twitter usage, I’m looking at click-throughs, or how many people clicked on the link I provided.

You can see this on your Twitter screen.

Well, you can’t see it with other people’s profiles.

And don’t be fooled – just because the yahoos on #mtpol choose not to like a tweet doesn’t mean that those tweets are going unnoticed.

James Conner here, for instance, probably gets a lot of click-throughs to his site.

I know when he linked to one of my articles a week ago my site got more than 80 linkbacks from him.

When Last Best News did the same, I got perhaps 15.

So that tells you audience, that tells you power.

Don’t be fooled.

What you’re looking for is that ‘bar’ symbol. That’ll tell you the post’s analytics, or how many people interacted with it.

This is what that looks like:

Now, let’s get real.

You’re going to have those types like me that get no likes, no retweets, and no replies.

That doesn’t mean we’re not getting any action, which is the link clicks.

As far as I’m concerned, the link clicks are the gold standard when it comes to social media.

You’ve enticed the wider social media community enough with your post that they actually clicked on the link.

So where does that link take them?

To some site that has nothing to do with you…or to your own site and your own message and your own idea for the future?

My philosophy is that your own site is the way to go.

That’s where your message is, one that can’t be encapsulated in 140 characters.

So I encourage you to have something for people to click over to, something that’s about yourself and your message.

For those wanting more information on click-throughs, check out my 2015 post, Is #mtpol Effective?

And that’s all I have for you today.

These ideas aren’t new or earth-shattering, but they can be effective.

Effective for what?

Mainly, getting your name and your message out there.

You’re in politics already, and you’re an elected official now.

That’s great, but the vast majority of the people in the state won’t care.

Make them care – put yourself out there, get vocal, and get results.

Long-term, that’ll help you.

Good luck.

If’ you’d like to learn more then I’d encourage you to check out my 194-page book, Social Media Politics: Using the Internet to Get Elected.

2 Comments

Digging Into Montana’s 2017 Budget

11/26/2016

2 Comments

Today we’ll dig into some PDF budget reports.

We’ll look at the 67-page FY 2017 Base Budget Report, which was prepared by the Legislative Finance Committee and released on September 29.

We’ll also look at the 179-page Revenue Estimate Recommendations, which covers the years 2017, 2018, and 2019 and was put out by the Legislative Fiscal Division on November 18.

This is dry stuff.

Usually the only people looking at this are being paid to look at it.

It’s their job, and perhaps they see things a little differently than you and I will.

After all, we’re not paid tax dollars to look at this.

In fact, it’s our tax dollars that will be spent in these budgets.

We as regular citizens have almost no say over how this money is spent.

Sure, we can write a letter or go and give testimony, but will we?

Probably not.

Nonetheless, we’ll look at this information because it’s important for regular citizens to see it, not just the taxpayer funded bureaucrats in Helena.

Let’s start with the big, 179-page revenue estimate report.

It’s divided into the following sections:

Overview
Business and Personal Taxes
Natural Resource Taxes
Interest Earnings
Consumption Taxes
Property Taxes
Other General Fund Revenue
Guarantee Fund Revenue

The 7 largest sources of Montana’s estimated 2017 income are:

Individual Income Tax: $1.21 billion
Property Tax: $260 million
Corporate Income Tax: $140 million
Vehicle Taxes & Fees: $109 million
Oil & Natural Gas Taxes: $44.8 million
Insurance Taxes & Licensing Fees: $71 million
Video Gambling Tax: $62.5 million

Those 7 largest sources of revenue account for $1.89 billion.

Besides that we have a lot of other, smaller revenue sources. You can see those here:

Montana State Revenue Chart, 2016-2019

So for the total 2017 General Fund we’ll have $2.19 billion.

If you want to look at the 2017-18 biennium General Fund it’d be $4.31 billion.

Here’s what that biennium revenue estimate looks like in graph form:

Montana General Fund Revenue Graph For 2019

As you can see, in every single area, revenue has gone up.

For the state, that’s great – more money to fund services.

For you, however, that’s terrible – less money to spend on things you want.

Over just the next two years it’s expected that you’ll be paying 11% more in income taxes, 9% more in property taxes, and nearly 6% more in vehicle taxes and fees.

If you’re a business you’ll be paying 15% more in corporate taxes and 5% more for insurance taxes.

If you like to gamble on the machines you’ll be paying nearly 6% more in taxes. If you drill oil or gas you’ll pay 24% more in taxes.

Why?

Let me ask that one more time…

Why?

Why are Montanans being taxed more…and where is that money going?

To put it another way, why is the state getting so much more revenue if that's not coming from an increase in taxes?

And why do income taxes account for so much of our state's revenue? Is this good...bad...don't matter?

That’s the reason we’re doing this post today, to figure out the answers to those questions.

The big problem is that we have 150 knuckleheads that’ll decide how this money is spent.

We call them legislators. Most don’t know as much as I’ve just told you now.

Despite that, they’ll decide how your tax money is spent.

Again, you’ll have very little say in this – you weren’t going to write a letter or testify, remember?

And that’s why your income taxes will continue to go up year after year.

Income Taxes in Montana

One tax that probably doesn’t have much affect on you is the lodging tax.

This is a 3% tax and it mostly targets hotels, though campgrounds also fall under it.

Lodging Taxes in Montana

So for 2017 we’ll have $52 million in revenue from this tax. That’s quite the increase from the nearly $23 million we got in 2004.

65% of this tax revenue goes to the Department of Commerce for tourism promotion.

That really means that a large chunk is going to Wisconsin marketing firms that are friendly with Commerce head Meg O’Leary.

Another 22% of that lodging tax goes to nonprofit tourism corporations, 6% goes to FW&P, 2% goes to the universities for travel research programs, and 1% goes to the Historical Society for historic roadside signs.

I hope legislators will look at this tax, as well as how much is going to our problematic Commerce Department.

Let’s rewrite those percentage allocations so that Commerce (Wisconsin) isn’t getting so much.

Remember, the governor has very little say in this – it’s the legislature that’ll be calling the shots from January to mid-April.

That’s what the monumental Democratic losses around the state meant.

Moving on...we currently have a 3% tax on railroad cars.

I’d like to see this tax go up, and for the simple reason that railroad companies are forcing Montanans to stare at their empty cars as they sit idle and forgotten on tracks all across the state.

We’ll be bringing in $3.4 million of these taxes for 2017.

I’d rather we tax these rich railroads more than we tax struggling workers, but that’s just me.

One argument against this will of course be that we raised the railroad car tax from 2.4% to 3.7% in 2015.

We currently charge a 4% tax on rental cars, another area that doesn’t really affect regular Montanans, just the people that come to visit or do business.

We’ll make $4.3 million from that in 2017.

I kind of like the idea of raising that tax to 5%, but I kind of like the idea of cutting spending in other areas too.

I mean, why do we need to raise taxes all the time? Usually it’s because we don’t have enough money for things we want.

Personally, I feel we should break out the fine-toothed comb and go through those things we want to see if we can cut costs somewhere.

Agencies might cry foul, and we should let them. The vast majority of Montanans won’t be listening.

Our telecommunications excise tax is 3.75% and we’re losing money here compared to previous years.

For 2017 we’ll make $16 million. In 2007 we made $21 million.

The main reason for this was that the Department of Revenue lost a pre-paid wireless case in 2011 that’s been reducing revenues by about $1 million a year since then.

We have two options here – live with the revenue reduction while cutting spending in other areas, or increase revenue through current or new taxes.

Something that legislators might want to consider is a 1% to 2% tax on drones while it's still early and there are few to decry it.

Or we could just cut spending. It’s what most Montanans do when it comes to their household budgets. Sometimes they go out and get new revenue through an additional job, but mostly they just cut spending.

We’re currently 60 pages into the 179-page revenue estimate.

Want to keep going?

I don’t blame you if you don’t – this is dry stuff!

Let me just mention a few more things that I’ve noticed:

I also see that we’re bringing in $76 million in diesel taxes, $152 million in gas taxes, and another $35 million in gross vehicle weight and other fees.

We call those consumption taxes and they take $263 million from our pocket each year.

That’s not something people want to pay, especially when the consumer price index is set to go up by 1% in 2017 and that after a 1% increase last year.

When that index goes up, prices for goods increase and you have less money in your pocket.

We’ll see if our corporate tax rate is sustainable. Pre-tax profits for U.S. corporations are set to go up 4% in 2017 from the previous year, then they’ll fall 2% in 2018 and then 3% in 2019. By that final year, corporate pre-tax profits will be at 0%.

Alright, let’s switch over to the shorter report.

One thing that jumps out at me is this chart showing how much money each agency/office of Montana state government is getting:

Montana State Agency Funding For 2017

You can see where most of the money is going:

DPHHS: $2.1 billion
OPI: $973 million
DOT: $672 million
Commissioner of Higher Ed.: $316 million
Corrections: $202 million
Justice: $98 million
Labor & Industry: $80 million
FW&P: $79 million

That chart would be a good one to make a graph out of – maybe a smart reporter will do that (I know it’ll get a bunch of social media shares).

All told, we’re giving $5 billion to our state agencies and offices for 2017, and that’s coming from four main sources:

Federal Special Revenue: $2.3 billion
General Fund: $1.9 billion
State Special Revenue: $755 million
Proprietary Funds: $12 million

Thank God for the feds, huh?

The legislative branch gets $15 million for 2017. That’ll ensure the legislature can meet and do what it does.

The Governor’s Office is getting nearly $62 million for it’s funding.

Big ticket items in the governor’s office include:

$46 million for personal services
$11 million for operating expenses
$403,000 for Mental Disabilities Bd Visitors
$330,000 for air transportation
$286,000 for the Lieutenant Governor’s Office
$188,000 for Indian Affairs
$149,000 to operate the governor’s mansion

These numbers can be awfully misleading, however. For instance, when it comes to the lieutenant governor’s office, it takes just $24,000 to operate the place. The other $286,000 goes to personal services, which I think mainly means paychecks for some of the state’s top earners.

Please, don’t ask me what anyone in the lieutenant governor’s office actually does, or how it makes our state better, or your life better.

I don’t know.

Does anyone?

The same goes for the “executive office program,” which takes just $676,000 to operate but spends $1.9 million on personal services…again, whatever the hell those are.

After that the report goes into each state department and what they’re spending money on.

For instance, this is what the Department of Commerce’s funding looks like:

Montana Commerce Department Funding for 2017

That’s $26 million of your money that’s being spent, and you can see how it’s being spent.

Good luck figuring out what a lot of those things mean, however.

CDBG RLF…SBDC/EPSCoR…BEAR Program…I have no idea what any of those are.

Hopefully people in state government do.

And hey, hopefully some of our legislators do too.

I know that all 150 of them aren’t going to know this stuff, and I’d say that 75 of them probably aren’t.

No, it’ll be a few dozen that are getting the real work done, as it always is.

Most of the rest will down be at the Wind Bag till late in the evenings, then they’ll come into their morning committee meetings all hungover.

That’s the legislature, as it’s always been.

I’ll get there one day, as will other young Montanans, most of whom you haven’t even heard of yet.

Many won’t know a thing, but some of us will be ready.

Until then, I hope you enjoyed reading a bit of what these reports contain.

It’s your money, after all.

And I hope that some of our TV stations and newspapers will do the same as I’ve just done.

Until then, remember…if you want in-depth Montana reporting (that doesn’t cost you a penny), come to Big Sky Words.

2 Comments

Lobbying the 2017 Montana Legislature on Marijuana

11/22/2016

6 Comments

Marijuana in the 2017 Montana Legislature

Montana Senate committee members have been set. You can see the names in this Bozeman Daily Chronicle link.

Now you know which legislators you can write letters to about marijuana.

I'm thinking the agriculture committee is the one you’ll want to target when it comes to medical marijuana.

You might want to write a letter to the tax committee as well – they’ll probably take up the 6% sales tax on medical marijuana.

When it comes to agriculture, these are the Senators on the committee:

Brian Hoven (R)
Nels Swandal (R)
Mary Caferro (D)]
Mike Lang (R)
Margie MacDonald (D)
Eric Moore (R)
Albert Olszewski (R)
Ryan Osmundson (R)
Diane Sands (D)
Frank Smith (D)
Dan Salomon (R)

Hoven is the Chair of the committee and Swandel is the Vice-Chair.

So you’ve got 7 Republicans and 4 Democrats.

It’ll be tough to convince some of those Democrats to get those medical marijuana bills out of committee.

If you want to see the 3-patient limit lifted before next summer, you might want to write some of those committee members a letter.

Tell them how you feel. Tell them what your problems are.

Write them a letter.

It’s their job to listen. Heck, you’re the one paying for their salary and benefits package.

Yes, their paycheck comes from your income and property tax dollars, maybe even some of the fees and such that you pay out on occasion.

The point is, they work for you.

Write them a letter.

I think you can do that.

Tell them what you think about medical marijuana and why it’s good for you and for Montana.

Many of those committee members probably haven’t heard from a medical marijuana patient. Many only have their preconceived notions to fall back on.

So write them a letter.

I’d suggest doing so for the following:

Brian Hoven
1501 Meadowlark Drive
Great Falls, MT 59404-3325

Nels Swandal
PO Box 147
Wilsall, MT 59086-0147

Mike Lang
PO Box 109
Malta, MT 59538-0109

Eric Moore
487 Signal Butte Road
Miles City, MT 59301-9205

Albert Olszewski
PO Box 8891
Kalispell, MT 59904-1243

Ryan Osmundson
1394 S. Buffalo Canyon Road
Buffalo, MT 59418-8005

Dan Salomon
42470 Salomon Road
Ronan, MT 59864-9272

That’s 7 letters that you can write to those people. You can do a handwritten note to each, or just print the same letter 7 times and send it.

That’ll cost you $3.29 in stamps and a bit of your time.

Will it make a difference?

It might.

And also, let’s remember that it was the House Human Services Committee that refused to lift the medical marijuana restrictions in the 2013 Legislature.

That committee was headed up by anti-marijuana hardliner David Howard.

It might be a good idea to look up that House committee when those committee member assignments are made public, which will happen soon.

Until then, think about writing a letter to your district’s legislators as well as others that you think might be able to help you.

Besides that…what else are you going to do?

This is easier that showing up to the legislature’s committee meeting rooms on the 3rd floor of the Capitol sometime in February or March.

It’ll be cold outside then, and miserable inside.

So please, think about writing a letter to these people that you’re paying to make laws and repeal them.

You can do it.

6 Comments

What’s the 2017 Montana Legislature’s Make-Up?

11/9/2016

1 Comment

You can see the 2016 Election results on the Montana Secretary of State’s page.

That’s where I get all this information.

So far I haven’t seen a news station or newspaper put out a look at the legislative make-up yet.

Let’s go ahead and do that.

According to my calculations, Republicans will have 58 seats in the House and Democrats will have 42.

Now, some races are still too close to call, with fewer than 100 votes separating the candidates.

These include:

HD 23
HD 26
HD 65

Besides that, HD 84 with Mary Ann Dunwell is still within about 150 votes.

The same goes for HD 92 with Republican Mike Hopkins ahead right now, and also HD 96, with Republican Adam Hertz ahead.

I don’t see those higher-number House seats flipping.

The first three I mentioned, however, could.

That’d make it 61 to 39 for the Republicans in the House.

If we look at the Senate it’s a little harder, as only half the races are in play this year.

Looking at those we see that Republicans won 16 Senate seats last night while Democrats won 9.

When we put in the current Senators we get a makeup of 32 to 18 with the GOP in charge.

So both chambers of the legislature are once again in GOP control.

We’ll see who the moderates are soon, as well as what the committee assignments are.

I have to be completely honest, however:

I’m not expecting much of anything to come out of the legislature that will make a difference in my life.

1 Comment

<<Previous

Lobbying Money in the 2017 Montana Legislature

Fuck You, Mary

Non-Partisan Political Thoughts

Bubbling Discontent

The Blame Game

Why Does Tom Burnett Hate Poor People?

Special Election Thoughts

Trump’s Marijuana Policy

Final Note

Visiting the Legislature

Musseling In

The Cost of Invasive Weeds

The House Business and Labor Committee

Conclusion

Digging Into Montana’s Spending Woes

Slow News Days…or Just Shoddy MT Journalism?

State Records

Special Election Talk

What’s the Infrastructure Bill?

What’s In the Infrastructure Bill?

Dennison Dies

Tips for Montana Legislators

Communication

Having a Blog

Using #mtpol

Getting Results Online

Digging Into Montana’s 2017 Budget

Lobbying the 2017 Montana Legislature on Marijuana

What’s the 2017 Montana Legislature’s Make-Up?

MT Book 7

Montana Blog

Popular Posts

Categories

Archives

My MT History Books

My Montana Novels

My Montana Short Fiction

​Bubbling Discontent

​The Blame Game

​Why Does Tom Burnett Hate Poor People?

​Special Election Thoughts

​Trump’s Marijuana Policy

​Final Note

​Musseling In

​The Cost of Invasive Weeds

​The House Business and Labor Committee

​Conclusion

​State Records

​Special Election Talk

​What’s the Infrastructure Bill?

​What’s In the Infrastructure Bill?

​Dennison Dies

​Communication

​Having a Blog

​Using #mtpol

​Getting Results Online

MT Book 7

​Montana Blog

​Popular Posts

Categories

Archives

​My MT History Books

My Montana Novels

My Montana Short Fiction

Bubbling Discontent

The Blame Game

Why Does Tom Burnett Hate Poor People?

Special Election Thoughts

Trump’s Marijuana Policy

Final Note

Musseling In

The Cost of Invasive Weeds

The House Business and Labor Committee

Conclusion

State Records

Special Election Talk

What’s the Infrastructure Bill?

What’s In the Infrastructure Bill?

Dennison Dies

Communication

Having a Blog

Using #mtpol

Getting Results Online

Montana Blog

Popular Posts

My MT History Books